0

I scanned both pages. Mindy Chen-Wishart. Contract Law (2018 6 edn). p 538.

  1. Paradoxically, Wrotham Park damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right.
  1. How do "Wrotham Park damages protect the claimant’s performance interest by enforcing a sale of the claimant’s right"?

  2. Why's this paradoxical?

Anson's Law of Contract (2016 30 ed).

      Having said that, one can perhaps defend the view that the damages in Wrotham Park were compensatory on the basis that it was the loss of the opportunity to sell the right in the future that was being compensated; or that the claimant was being compensated for a non- pecuniary loss (ie the claimant valued the right so much— to protect the views over that land— that it would not have been willing to sell it).78

78See above pp 566– 8.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.